War On Terror's Other Cost: Undeserved Anger At All Muslims

[akv]

Penn,

I realize you were trying to make a point, collectively we all want to win this war. With that sole objective in mind, given the tactics employed by the enemy, non state actors in the case of AQ, and insurgency in Afghanistan, don't we sow the seeds for perpetual and expanded conflict with anything other than precise use of force? General McChrystal touched on the expansive risk characteristics of "insurgent math". Specifically in this type of conflict can we kill our way to victory? Wars end when one side loses the will to fight, WW2 while not easy, was simpler, we took Berlin, Germany surrendered. Here we face a decentralized criminal organization (focused on political coercion instead of profit) complete with global cells, and an insurgency. Folks have addressed total war, unfortunate civilian casualties, and our moral limits in previous posts, my question is can we brutalize our way to victory in the scenario we face? For example, The Soviets didn't namby pamby anything when it came to brutal force, they had no restrictive ROE. TS's point is valid, when you are ordered to place mines designed to maim children it's clear who you should shoot. Despite using such tactics and brutality the Soviets still lost. The Israelis are closer to our values system, yet despite their military superiority over the Palestinians and blunt force mindset, what results have they achieved?

In an earlier thread IIRC Richard likened the war in Afghanistan to a police officer making a repeated call out to a domestic violence situation in poor urban neighborhood. A dangerous situation which can escalate into substantial and perpetual community blowback if mishandled.

There are domestic instances of success against organized crime organizations specifically the war on the Mafia using RICO etc in the 70's. Our challenge is different we need to kill them not convict them, but our enemies operate across borders. IMHO it is equally important to note what the NY authorities did not do. They declared war on the Mafia, not Italian Americans. They didn't go into Italian boroughs and shake the people down until they produced mafia. Basically, they knew most Italians here weren't mafia and were scared of the mob. They didn't disparately target Catholic churches or Italian businesses, or question every last name in the white pages that ends in a vowel. We think of the past as the good old days, but the abbreviation for term With Out Papers isn't that old, neither was the era without tensions and stereotypes. At the same time there were plenty of civilians in the neighborhoods who know who the bad guys were, most chose other paths, but we didn't condemn them for minding their own business and keeping their mouth shut. It wasn't easy but with the discerning granularity and precise use of Humint ,infiltration and an evolution in legal technology (RICO) they broke the mobs back.

With Islam it is easy to fall into this same trap, what emeritus sociology and politics professor Sami Zubaida of Birckbeck College in London refers to as " a totalizing vision". Specifically

It conceives the political world as one of confrontation between Muslims on the one side and hostile Christians, Jews and Hindus on the other. It is a variant of the "clash of civilizations". It is a totalising vision which eliminates actual politics. The complexities of Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine/Israel, of the ethnic politics of Europe, of the struggles of Chechnya, all these are collapsed to a single dimension of religious/communal confrontation.

While I don't agree necessarily agree with his views on religion and ideology , he earlier also clarifies;

Muslims in western societies follow diverse religious and political orientations and have diverse lifestyles. Indeed, Muslims do not constitute a "community", but are differentiated by ethnicity, class and generation and education. The assertion of Islam as their primary identity is, indeed, a misleading ideology, upheld equally by Islamist publicists and many institutions and authorities of the "host societies". Many sectors are secular and only nominally "Muslim", though all the signs are that these are declining in a wave of religious assertion. Others are occasionally observant and "cultural" Muslims. Rigorous Salafism may be a minority orientation, although an increasingly prominent one. Its authority and influence are assured by the lavish financial provisions of Saudi sources, establishing mosques, schools and charities, and dispensing clerics and preachers.

IMHO we play right into AQ's hands by upping the brutality quotient without precision targeting. We are not AQ's objective their objective is to recreate a fundamentalist Islamic Caliphate, and they are failing. The security forces of Islamic nations are hunting AQ as well now realizing their barbaric ways, this was not always the case. We absolutely need to identify, engage, and terminate the enemy, yet if we aren't careful we will then in fact create a world of Umma nationalism needlessly and the very "clash of civilization" AQ and the insurgents need to survive.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflic...ology_4346.jsp

[nmap]

Originally Posted by akv

IMHO we play right into AQ's hands by upping the brutality quotient without precision targeting.

There is a cost, in terms of time, effort, and effectiveness to such precision. Is it worth it? That depends on the aggregate cost - in other words, the cost per target times the number of targets.

I do believe there are lots of individuals that ought to be designated as targets. Couple that with a high cost-per-target and the effort becomes impractical.

Rhetorical question: How does one identify a Taliban sympathizer in the wilds of Afghanistan, and do so with high confidence, low risk, and reasonable cost in terms of blood and treasure? I'm sure I don't know. If someone does know, they probably shouldn't say.

[T-Rock]

Islamic Statements Against Terrorism

“…This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. ( Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President, Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS - Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and politicians)

“All Muslims ought to be united against all those who terrorize the innocents” (Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi, Qatar; Tariq Bishri, Egypt; Muhammad S. Awwa, Egypt; Fahmi Huwaydi, Egypt; Haytham Khayyat, Syria; Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani)

“Attacking innocent people is not courageous,…” (Shaykh Muhammed Sayyid al-Tantawi, imam of al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, Egypt)

ETC, ETC, ETC…

What constitutes an innocent life under the legal system of Islamic Law or under the ideology of Islam?

According to Islamic Sharia Law, the agnostic or “Kafir” are “NOT INNOCENT” - they are the worst of all creatures - so says Islam…

Don’t take my word for it, listen to the Ummah and read what Islamic Law says…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAbPeUJ0HHQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-bW9...layer_embedded

"...whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (5:32)

"The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom..." (5:33)

The first part (5:32) sounds like a prohibition against murdering any innocent, but the second part (5:33) permits the killing of non-Muslims under many circumstances (kufr/Kafiroon) because, they have committed corruption, or mischief in the land by not believing in “Mo-Alla” which puts one “beyond the pale of Islam”

Islamic Law says - not my words or feelings :

* Kafir - Non-Muslim / Non-Believer/ Pagan / Agnostic /Jew / Christian, etc…
* Kufr - Unbelief/infidelity
* Apostate - One who denies the ultimate truth of Islam.
* Apostacy - The act of any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, and leaves the faith.
(Reliance of the Traveller - index for above - see pages 1132,1170,1172,1207).

c2.5 The unlawful (haram) is what the Law giver strictly forbids. Someone who commits an unlawful act deserves punishment...

(3) and unbelief (kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7) and neccessitate stating the Testification of faith (Shahada)...
(pgs 30-31)

o4:17 There is no indemnity for killing a non-Muslim...
(pgs 588-595)

o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed

o8.7 (2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one therby immediately commits unbelief:

(15) to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent:
(Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Pages 30-45, 588-595, 595-610).


Arafat said to the non-innocent world that they wanted peace with the Jews, yet among his fellow Muslims, he was only offering "the peace of Saladin"

"al-Taqiyya" - “wAllahu khayru al-makireen”

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

It is a historiographically sustainable FACT that the Koran is more anti-semitic than Hitler's Mein Kampf.

I think we have different definitions of "historiography," divergent views of historical causation, and differing interpretations of modern European history in general and modern German history in particular.

[Penn]

MK262 & AKV

MK262
I just wanted to point out that what Penn wrote above is absolutely evil, and I hope he gets help.

Targeting Children???? Yeah.... you go sign back up and put a uniform on for that one. Let's see if you can take an M240 and mow down a couple schools worth of Muslim kids.

I. Yes, it is absolutely evil. If executed by a muslim it is not judged as evil, it’s part of jihad, disguised as: we need our own state separatist movement, and the sea of islam say's what? And your defense is what?

2. Who ever said anything about being in uniform. My cousin in the 70's, much to the horror of the family, ran guns for the IRA. I see the future as Non state actors executing policy against muslims on their own.

3. The declaration of war I presented is the muslim & bin laden song book.

4. There is no defense for muslims other than they are primates who have not evolved, that plausible, they do after all, destroy(MURDER) their children for sake of family honor, which must bring a sense of relief for the victim, it seems the culture it rooted in primal familial rape and abuse; would being put out of that vicious misery be considered one allahs blessings? I would think it would, so praise be to allah in all his mercifulness.

There is a direct correlation of reinforced cultural conditioning reflected in the chickenian (pun intended) Muslim slaughter of 300 innocent children in a Russian School.

Did you see that blatant propaganda on the cover of Time Magazine. A beautiful Afghan girl with her ears and nose hacked off because she ran away from her husband. The back story was: Her father sold her to a Taliban fighter, while away, his family beat her and abuse her, locking her in a room for a year while he was out jihading.

You can tell from the picture, even though she is all hacked up, she is beautiful. I can image the threat she must have pose as an uneducated, dirt floor village, subservient prisoner. The thought of Beauty as a threat to cultural domination; seems a strictly muslim construct. Portraiture is outlawed.

Now if you do want to make a counter point, and are truly magnanimous, get some friends together find a way to get her here, NYC; because the best plastic surgeon in NYC (and that pretty much means world class best) is a dear friend of mine. He would love the opportunity to help restore some sense of being human to this young girl. The Only culture that permits this animal behavior is muslim!!! It is not a defensible position.

Back on topic:

The declaration of war I presented is current muslim warfare ideology, a ideology you are defending, by, as you say, the offering of a counter point, a counter point to what, truth?

As for the help I need, I need to get in touch with my cousin, and I need private LR SOTIC classes. Other than that I feel balanced and on target.

Edited for inaccurate word choice. Richard

Richard, Thank you for the correction, I know I was over the line, but passion and emotion when combined often lead to inappropriate displays of behavior; my sincere apologies to the board.

[MK262]

Originally Posted by Penn

The declaration of war I presented is current muslim warfare ideology, a ideology you are defending, by, as you say, the offering of a counter point, a counter point to what, truth?

I hate to get sucked back into this thread, but since you are lying about what I have said, I might as well correct you.

I never defended any ideology as espoused by extremists. To say I have ever done that, is an outright lie.

What I have said is that not all Muslims are our enemy. That is the counter point I have made.

Having corrected you, I now leave this thread again. Discussing this issue with people like you who are completely devoid of rationality is pointless.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by MK262

Entire post.

Bluntly, I'm increasingly convinced that you are not reading what other people post.

Moreover, your 'counterpoints' would have more merit if they were consistent with each other and did not reflect the values that you attribute to others.

As I pointed out earlier, you and I are in broad agreement on this issue. Unfortunately, at present you are doing more to undermine that position than to support it.

My $0.02.

[Penn]

Checking out at Costco this morning, a mother and son were in front of me. She had her head covered, they spoke Arabic together. While she placed her grocery on the counter, the son, in his Rutgers shorts, texted; spoke fluent English on his cell, with a nasal NJ accent, there is no doubt an American raised young man.

The only one thought that crossed my mind: As an American, I wondered were his loyalties laid.

A breach of trust occurred. It continues to split the relationship between muslim and all other non muslims, by the refusal of muslim people and cleric’s worldwide to assist in the capture of bin laden and the rest of his ilk.

Your defense, and for that matter anyone defense of: “Not all muslims are terrorist” is incorrect.

All muslims are culpable due to the continued silence in denouncing the wanton slaughter of innocent people, not to mention the easy denouncement in the wholesale killing of children.

There is no movement, as in protest, in the muslim community worldwide to confront its radical cleric’s inciting hate and advocating the killing of innocent people. The logic being: non muslims do not matter, jihad is a cultural impetrative, and to do so would be putting their life on the line, by not adhering to Islamic doctrine.

If not all muslim support terrorism, or are not sympatric to terrorism, then why is there not a worldwide movement by muslim; let’s say on the order of the anti-war movement in the 1960’s and early 1970’s, that developed in America and worldwide to stop the war.

Surly with a billion muslim worldwide, statistically speaking of course, there should be some form of protest movement?

Except for the fact of the, 999,900,999 million illiterate muslims the power elite refuses to educate.

The defense of muslim ideology, or muslims as “not all are terrorist”, fails the accessory test in all capital cases. As a former LEO, silence automatically makes one a co-conspirator; therefore, in the execution of any terrorist acts that wantonly kill innocent people, all muslims are implicated by association affirmed in their silence, which translates as condoning the action.

[Penn]

MK262,

but since you are lying about what I have said

I am not lying, I am interpreting, inferring, what you are implying, in the defense of "not all muslims are terrorist" its that simple.

[nmap]

I guess there's something I just don't understand.

Let us suppose that not all Muslims - which I will call group B - are bad. Some are good, some are bad, some are neither.

There is another group which consists of non-Muslims. Let's call them group A.

Members of group B sometimes do bad things to members of group A. The reader may be inclined to point out that members of group A may sometimes do bad things to members of B, but that is beyond the scope of this posting. Let's focus on B doing things to A for the moment.

Members of A want the bad things to stop. How to do this?

1) Group A can eliminate B.
2) Group A can surrender to B.
3) Group A can filter out the bad elements in B and remove them and no one else.

Members of group A generally reject solutions (1) and (2). That leaves solution (3).

I do not know how to discern who within group B is a bad person. I have not yet addressed (and will not address, in this post) how to deal with the problem after identification. So the question is - how can we know who is a bad guy within group B? For our purposes here, this is a rhetorical question; however, in the real world it is deadly serious. The evidence suggests that we do not know, although I would welcome information showing otherwise.

And this brings us back to Chef Penn's woman and children at Costco. If we suppose that the woman is Muslim, and further suppose her child is a Muslim, how can we determine whether the child is (or is not) a bad guy? Other than the Muslim factor, I see no way to accomplish this. However, we have evidence - a growing pile of evidence - that American born Muslims have some possibility of turning into bad guys. Therefore our problem is not theoretical; rather, it becomes a matter of life and death.

Now this has an implication which may be worthy of reflection. If we don't know how to filter out the bad guys, then the survival of our society and civilization depends on the elimination of group B. Note I did not say killing all the members of group B, or even some of the members of that group. Neither did I suggest giving all, some, or any of them a wedgie. Elimination of group B means some set of actions that causes them to stop the attacks.

So, then, our choice - we must eliminate them, or accept our own elimination. Again, in this context, elimination is not a synonym for kill.

My impression is that Western civilization prefers its own demise. I cannot say I like that choice.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by nmap

Entire post.

nmap--

I think you could develop more options than (a), (b), and (c) if you expanded the forms of political activity beyond the choices of capitulation and annihilation.

As for defining the 'bad guy,' I think that defining the enemy primarily by intent is not the way to go. Earlier, you argued that 'demographics are destiny.' I think that statement is false. History is made by people making choices in their everyday lives. From a historical perspective, most of these choices will be inconsequential. People are simply too busy doing their own thing to worry too much about 'the big picture.'

Some in this thread think that this inattention is a bad thing, that it leads to complacency, that if we don't wake up now, we'll wake up one day living under sharia law. I respectfully disagree. To me, that's just the way of the world.

In my opinion, the greater danger is limiting the options people face so that they feel pressured to make choices and decisions they otherwise might not. Heated rhetoric that radicalizes the discussion is a sure way to put pressure on folks and get them to feel hemmed in.

Everyone has buttons to push. Are there ways we can communicate and not push those buttons unnecessarily?

Make no mistake, I am absolutely sure that at this moment there are Americans who have succumbed to their hate and to their fear and are plotting something horrible. (I work at a facility that the DHS considers an attractive target.) These people need to be found out and stopped.

But while the high speed low drag types hunt down these scoundrels, I think we low speed types should be temperate in our judgments, provisional in our conclusions, and moderate in our rhetoric.

YMMV.

[craigepo]

MK262

Please tread carefully when accusing people of lying on this forum. Discussions on this forum are often pursued with great vigor. They do not become personal. Terms such as "lying" make things personal.

There are some brilliant minds on this forum. Many will have opinions wholly contrary to your own. Logic and manners win the day, friends, and respect.

[MK262]

Originally Posted by craigepo

MK262

Please tread carefully when accusing people of lying on this forum. Discussions on this forum are often pursued with great vigor. They do not become personal. Terms such as "lying" make things personal.

There are some brilliant minds on this forum. Many will have opinions wholly contrary to your own. Logic and manners win the day, friends, and respect.

Ok.

He was being disingenuous. I'll leave it at that.

[ZonieDiver]

While callling someone out as a "liar" is a big step, and a gross violation of what I consider to be "PS.com manners," it is hard to mistake these words:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penn

The declaration of war I presented is current muslim warfare ideology, a ideology you are defending, by, as you say, the offering of a counter point, a counter point to what, truth?

I never got the impression that MK262, someone I do not know and with whom I have never exchanged a PM, was saying that.

I think it is time we all took a step back. This is a very personal, volatile, and complex issue. I would ask that we all temper our remarks. I would further ask that perhaps we wrote our messages elsewhere, let them "distill" a bit, and then pasted them into a message box here... and used the "preview" button extensively before posting.

Thank you.

[Peregrino]

ZD - Quality advice, thanks for stepping up.